On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

In article <ba6212a7-021b-448e-8e05-4748deaa9065@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

So Jake wouldn't hand to hand snipe your arse/ass?

If you say so, Guthball.



Question is, which side of the moldy bed does BDK get to wet?

Awww, now your just being a meanie...



Or, is there a third slot for the bed wetting expertise of Art Deco
acting as a soggy buffer between you two brown-nosed guys or gals?
. - Brad Guth

BWHAHAHAHAHAAA! What is it about you kooks in general where your insults
always, always, end up involving gay sex?

Later Guthball old boy..

BDK

On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

Question is, which side of the moldy bed does BDK get to wet?

Or, is there a third slot for the bed wetting expertise of Art Deco
acting as a soggy buffer between you two brown-nosed guys or gals?
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 7:32 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <ba6212a7-021b-448e-8e05-4748deaa9065@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

So Jake wouldn't hand to hand snipe your arse/ass?

If you say so, Guthball.



Question is, which side of the moldy bed does BDK get to wet?

Awww, now your just being a meanie...



Or, is there a third slot for the bed wetting expertise of Art Deco
acting as a soggy buffer between you two brown-nosed guys or gals?
. - Brad Guth

BWHAHAHAHAHAAA! What is it about you kooks in general where your insults
always, always, end up involving gay sex?

Later Guthball old boy..

BDK

Ever notice how you and others of your kind haven't independently
contributed squat on behalf of your beloved NASA/Apollo.
. - Brad Guth

In article <30d89ede-adb3-4a84-a8f0-3a38e666d394
@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...



On Apr 22, 7:32 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <ba6212a7-021b-448e-8e05-4748deaa9065@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

So Jake wouldn't hand to hand snipe your arse/ass?

If you say so, Guthball.

Question is, which side of the moldy bed does BDK get to wet?

Awww, now your just being a meanie...

Or, is there a third slot for the bed wetting expertise of Art Deco
acting as a soggy buffer between you two brown-nosed guys or gals?
. - Brad Guth

BWHAHAHAHAHAAA! What is it about you kooks in general where your insults
always, always, end up involving gay sex?

Later Guthball old boy..

BDK

Ever notice how you and others of your kind haven't independently
contributed squat on behalf of your beloved NASA/Apollo.
. - Brad Guth

Those "kind" only exist as a group inside that mass of jello you call a
mind..

BDK

Why don't you lot
(a) learn to stop quoting each other's rubbish ad nauseam
(b) carry on your enthralling arguments by private email

On Apr 22, 10:24 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <30d89ede-adb3-4a84-a8f0-3a38e666d394
@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...



On Apr 22, 7:32 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <ba6212a7-021b-448e-8e05-4748deaa9065@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 22, 8:42 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jake doesn't play fair. He'd hand-to-hand snipe Brad's arse.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

We can always tell by way of your flapping butt-cheeks, that your lies
upon lies and insurmountable denial of being in denial is fully in
charge of your private parts.

So Jake wouldn't hand to hand snipe your arse/ass?

If you say so, Guthball.

Question is, which side of the moldy bed does BDK get to wet?

Awww, now your just being a meanie...

Or, is there a third slot for the bed wetting expertise of Art Deco
acting as a soggy buffer between you two brown-nosed guys or gals?
. - Brad Guth

BWHAHAHAHAHAAA! What is it about you kooks in general where your insults
always, always, end up involving gay sex?

Later Guthball old boy..

BDK

Ever notice how you and others of your kind haven't independently
contributed squat on behalf of your beloved NASA/Apollo.
. - Brad Guth

Those "kind" only exist as a group inside that mass of jello you call a
mind..

BDK

Three times I've posted a reply to this following "Rodney Blackall"
contribution, and never has any of my context been added into this
topic.

You can't tell me that for real spooks and moles of the DARPA Semitic
Third Reich kind are not in charge of this Usenet.
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 21, 3:23 pm, Rodney Blackall <rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Why don't you lot
(a) learn to stop quoting each other's rubbish ad nauseam
(b) carry on your enthralling arguments by private email

On Apr 11, 12:10 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:





On Apr 10, 10:28 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:

In article <41d9e69e-bd36-4f7d-b4c1-
ea2e7237b...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, pne.cho...@comcast.net
says...

On Apr 9, 2:01 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <5e89257d-b19e-4195-8488-8d1a5e3ac6a2
@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 8, 8:28 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <a437fe31-702e-4e3b-9375-0044922e6ec4
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 7, 11:01 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <7515955b-3a60-4de0-8ba8-db26330e26e6
@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Apr 5, 6:50 pm, Isa HardDik <I...@bone.net> wrote:

I see you're STILL a fuckwit Brad!

Yes Hitler/Bush, we understand perfectly as to what your born-again
Zionist mindset of global domination is trying to say.
. - Brad Guth

No Brad, that's just being sane, not a whackjob like you.

BDK

In other words, you and others of your Third Reich kind still have
nothing objective as proof-positive, outside of your NASA/Apollo
Koran(Quran).

Of the JAXA/KAGUYA(Selene) or of anything of CNSA(Chang'e No..1) simply
has not generated one worthy frame of their quality video or of
whatever individual FOV as having our physically dark moon looking the
least bit if anything like those NASA/Apollo video/photographic
frames.  Clearly those JAXA/Selene images with having the foreground
of the physically dark moon along with mother Earth are of those
officially tampered with, as of prior to their being shared with the
public.  We're not even allowed to see the other 99.9% of such images,
even of those HDTV format with having their moon related color
saturations removed and/or having been sufficiently dynamic range
skewed in order to suit the ongoing demands of all that's NASA/Apollo.

By now, and at merely one frame per minute, how many tens of thousand
frames from their TC of 10 meter resolution obtained images are archived,
but not being shared.

The greater spectrum sensitivity and vastly improved dynamic range of
those JAXA/Selene cameras, along with their best available optics as
having been quality bandpass coated, is simply of further proof
positive that our NASA team of crack damage-control wizards are in
fact still hard at work, protecting each and every one of their LLPOF
butts for all it's worth.  Of their selective spectrum imaging is what
otherwise proves that our moon offers a wide range of mineralogy
considerations.  Yet where's the observationology worth of their
ongoing mission?

It looks promising that CNSA is going in for the kill, as soon enough
having to orbit at 50 km, of which should do nearly as well as the
JAXA/Selene mission at 100 km, if not slightly better.  It seems, of
their quality cameras and bandpass coated optics of this CNSA moon
research and mapping effort is also rather bluish or somewhat purple/
violet saturated from the very same secondary/recoil worth of the raw
solar UV energy that's unavoidably interacting with that sodium vapor
spewing moon of ours.

I tell you NASA certified wise-guys what;  why don't you pull out a
few dozen originals of them tens of thousands of official NASA/Apollo
Kodak moments, and let us see via digital scanning down to the grain
of that original film as to whatever truth there is to behold, of
their unfiltered images from orbit and from those surface EVAs that
made their moon look as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated and
of that guano island albedo the likes of 0.65 ~0.75(75%).  Then we
each try to explain once again how the hell they managed as of
missions A11, A14 and A16 to have so entirely missed Venus.
. - Brad Guth

Man, that was a big load of Guth rant!

BDK

I've got more aspects of Guth rant worthy stuff to share, but then you
folks only seem to function on behalf of extracting those bits of out-
of-context stuff, so that you can pretend being so brown-nosed wise
and all-knowing without your ever having to disclose the actual truths
about much of anything.
. - Brad Guth

Keep the Guthball stuff coming!!

Suppose the truth is in line with what the brown-nosers say? Would
Brad then simply lie? Evidence points to that he would!

He's so far out there, it's hard to guess what he would do. His Venus
fixation cracks me up.

Yes, it is sort of bizzare. I'd love for him to be a PI for an actual
mission.

He used to have this theory that Sirius and our sun co-orbit each
other every 105,000 years. I told him, like annual rings within trees,
we'd have geological evidence of a thermal cycle if Siruis ever got
that close.

And, of how close would it take? (not very, especially if Sirius b had
been going somewhat red giant)

Considering the shock and awe power of Sirius a/b (possibly c),
getting to within 0.86 ly would likely more than do the trick, not to
mention the interactive Oort cloud worth of icy flak.

Sirius B is a dwarf star! We know that!


Considering the shock and awe power of Sirius a/b (possibly c),
getting to within 0.86 ly would likely more than do the trick, not to
mention the interactive Oort cloud worth of icy flak.

I wish I was as smart as you. As you obviously know that the
established science of Sirius' system and our sun are wrong. Yet I
still wait for your explanation as to how that science is wrong and
your's is right.

Eric

On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

Nice try, your playing dumb and dumber, that is.

BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
mole going by the name Disneygeek?
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

Nice try, your playing dumb and dumber, that is.

BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
mole going by the name Disneygeek?
. - Brad Guth

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

Nice try, your playing dumb and dumber, that is.

That'd be you pretend-brainbox. Why would an astronaut on the Moon take a
picture towards the Sun (and Venus)? Have you ever used a camera?

BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
mole going by the name Disneygeek?
. - Brad Guth

You can't see the Ed Rhodes plainly displayed in his email address? Weird.

Shill #2
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round....
theobviousgcashman

What took you so long?

Huh?

Where are those supposed big guns of your objective proof-positive on
behalf of ALL things NASA/Apollo?

Are them big guns of your mainstream status quo merely loaded with
blanks?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the laughs.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round....
theobviousgcashman

What took you so long?

Huh?

Where are those supposed big guns of your objective proof-positive on
behalf of ALL things NASA/Apollo?

Are them big guns of your mainstream status quo merely loaded with
blanks?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the laughs.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman